From Inksters Solicitors

Tag Archives: Crabbit Crofter

I have been away on holiday for a few days in Gdansk. Usually when I go on holiday I miss a lot of crofting scandal and intrigue. This holiday was no exception. Upon my return I caught up, via Twitter, with goings on during the crofting election campaign. Here are a selection of the tweets:-

There appears to be solidarity amongst those tweeting. Their views are clear and similar to many expressed over the past year following the allegations of abuse of power within the Crofting Commission. Allegations that appear to have been well founded in light of the U-Turn taken by the Crofting Commission, their subsequent apology and the findings of the Governance Review. Whether this solidarity is reflected amongst the non-tweeting crofting electorate remains to be seen next week. The polls, as we all know, do not always get it right. We should, however, know the answer by High Noon next Friday.

Image Information: At High Noon, June 4, 1989 – political poster featuring Gary Cooper to encourage votes for the Solidarity party in the 1989 elections (first semi-free elections in the People’s Republic of Poland). This is a historically significant poster, one of the symbols of the end of communism in Eastern Europe. It depicts Gary Cooper carrying a voting ballot instead of a gun, and wearing a Solidarity logo above his sheriff’s badge. The Solidarity movement heralded the collapse of communism across Eastern Europe. Photo taken inside the European Solidarity Centre in Gdansk on 5 March 2017.

That statement was made by Murdo Maclennan in English. He made another statement on the same day to the media in Gaelic. That Gaelic statement was broadcast on BBC Radio nan Gaidheal’s Aithris an Fheasgair on 17 August 2016.

The Crabbit Crofter has made as accurate a transcription and translation into English from Gaelic as he could of this statement, and that as follows:-

…that was in the letter and…um…and…eh…the Convener made…eh…he brought the letter to the board…about it…as I said…as…as…every public board is anyway…there will be different opinions…and we came…we talked about it and we came to the conclusion…everyone in the…everyone in the Commission was behind…as I’m saying…and accepted it.

Unfortunately in these two villages that…they didn’t come to an agreement…there wasn’t an agreement…between the people who raised the topic and…and…eh…the township committees themselves but…but that’s past now…and…and we are working eh with…as in Upper Coll…we have got a Constable who is working with crofters in the village…and…and…I am finding out he is working well with them…eh… unfortunately …I said that it was…it came to this…but we think we did the right things for the township.

Well, no better or any more understandable than the statement made in English!

Interesting that in this statement Murdo Maclennan speaks specifically about an apparent lack of agreement in two villages (there were actually three involved: two on the Isle of Lewis and one on the Scottish mainland) but “that’s past now”.

It may be in the past in the Commission’s eyes but it is what Fergus Ewing’s letter was all about and crofters still want answers as to why the Commission took the action that they did and assurances that they will never do so, in such circumstances, again.

The Commission’s current policy on this matter, in light of the letter from Fergus Ewing MSP, must be made clear and this statement goes nowhere near doing so.

Murdo Maclennan says “we have got a Constable”. Is this, yet again, the Commission thinking the constable is their man on the ground rather than an independent party distinct from the Commission who simply takes the role of clerk/committee?

In any event the grazings constable in question is illegal! If the Crofting Commission are now accepting that they got it wrong, in light of Fergus Ewing’s letter, does it not follow that they are accepting that they got it wrong in relation to the appointment of constables?

@CroftingLaw Note the freudian slip. “we’ve got a constable” in Upper Coll. The Commissions man, not the townships.

The Crofting Commission, via Murdo Maclennan seems to think that the illegally appointed constable in Upper Coll is “working well” with the crofters in the village. Certainly not the message being given out loud and clear by many of the crofters in the village who have stated that to date they have “only been co-operating with the constable under duress”.

All and all it still seems to be a shambles. The Crofting Commission appear to say, perhaps reluctantly, on one hand that they agree that they got it wrong (i.e. in support of the Scottish Government position) but on the other hand they still think that they did the right thing. Those two viewpoints cannot sit easily side by side.

However, the statements made on behalf of the Crofting Commission by Murdo Maclennan, both in English and in Gaelic, are far from clear in any event and are open to misinterpretation.

The Crofting Commission must, in all the circumstances, publish a written statement in clear English and Gaelic (each one being a direct translation of the other) that sets out their actual position on the matter. This should, in any event, have been done as a matter of course immediately following their board meeting last Wednesday.

As she does not disclose her source of information I assume that she is referring to my post-board interview with BBC Alba. My Gaelic is nuanced through a Partick twang and she has clearly misinterpreted my public statement. I did state during the interview that the Commission conducted a debate followed by a motion, which I moved, being carried unanimously and without dissent. In any public body vigorous debate is surely to be encouraged and not disparaged.

Sorry, Mr Maclennan but that goes nowhere near resolving the confusion you have already created – It may in fact have caused more!

Do the Commission take the view that they have done nothing wrong despite the letter from Fergus Ewing? A simple “Yes” or “No” in English, Gaelic or Partick twang will suffice.

Colin Souter disputed this figure. As that was, apparently, the figure obtained via a Freedom of Information (FOI) request in connection with the remuneration of the Mangersta Grazings Constable then perhaps different grazings constables have been paid different rates. If so then this would reveal yet more inconsistencies on the part of the Crofting Commission!

Another FOI request has disclosed that as at 1 July 2016 Donald Harrison (Mangersta Grazings Constable) had been paid or was due to be paid £4,659 and Colin Souter (Upper Coll Grazing Constable) had been paid or was due to be paid £1,227.85.

The Mangersta Grazings Constable had been carrying out activities (albeit illegally) much longer than the Upper Coll one at that point. Today the Mangersta Grazings Constable is no longer in ‘office’ but the Upper Coll one still purports to be and is no doubt still accepting payment for his activities despite the risks of so doing outlined by Donald Rennie.

The ‘Crabbit Crofter‘ brought to our attention today the fact that the Crofting Commission have been deleting/changing their website in so far as guidelines concerning ‘common grazings the rights of crofters and the duties of grazings committees and their grazings clerks’ are concerned.

In April 2016 the Crofting Commission published guidelines on this topic by their Convener, Colin Kennedy, who stated:-

It seems to me like a very good time to remind shareholders in Common Grazings what their rights are and what the duties of the Grazings committee and their Grazings clerk are.

The Crabbit Crofter reveals that those guidelines have now been deleted from the Crofting Commission’s website:-

It is extraordinary that a public body in Scotland in this day and age is resorting to historical revisionism and we shall return in a subsequent post to the significance of this in light of what the Crofting Commission is now claiming their current and past position on ‘The Common Clearances‘ to be.

All hands went up in Ullapool with a vote of no confidence in the Crofting Commission

The Scottish Crofting Federation have highlighted that the outrage of crofters at the treatment grazings committees are receiving from the Crofting Commission is escalating as another constable is appointed and shareholders are summoned to a Commission meeting.

Chair of the Scottish Crofting Federation, Fiona Mandeville, said:-

The behaviour of the Crofting Commission is causing widespread resentment and bewilderment in the crofting communities. We are all completely dismayed that the body that is supposed to be promoting the interests of crofting is instead behaving so negatively and harmfully. It seems to have lost all sense of reason.

Following summary dismissals of grazings committees by the Crofting Commission, and accusations of the Commission’s inconsistent and oppressive behaviour, the Scottish Crofting Federation held a meeting in Ullapool last Friday. Fifteen people attended, including deposed grazings officials, crofters and others. A vote of no confidence in the Commission was passed unanimously.

Ms Mandeville went on to say:-

The meeting was unequivocal in its opinion of the Crofting Commission’s conduct. As well as a vote of no confidence in the Commission, the meeting thought that it would be appropriate for the convener of the Commission to stand aside whilst an investigation is carried out into the summary dismissals of grazings committees and the internal procedures of the Commission that has led to this debacle. The Scottish Crofting Federation fully supports this.

How does the Crofting Commission intend to manage the day to day running of the grazings that they have left with no committee? Claims for CAP support are due imminently, both by committees on behalf of grazings and by individuals who need agreement of their grazings committee to use extra soumings. Large amounts of money, and we are talking thousands of pounds, will be lost. Will the Crofting Commission be ready to compensate for losses? Or do they expect the constables they are imposing on the grazings to do this? Whilst being questionable in legality, imposing constables is belligerent, particularly as shareholders are expected to pay them.

The issue seems to be around how committees manage their operational reserves. The Crofting Act is open to interpretation on exactly how this is supposed to be done but grazings committees have always taken a pragmatic approach. The Commission have apparently recently taken an interpretation that is simply unworkable. We are hearing from many committees that if they are forced to pay out all their operational reserves they will simply have to wind up management of the grazings. That will be the end of this unique system, which we hope is not the intention. The Commission is being utterly irresponsible.

Prior to summary dismissal, grazings committee members were called by the Commission to meetings with no warning of what the meeting was to be about. The commission are carrying on in the same authoritarian vein with another summons to their meetings again, with no consultation as to suitability of date, time or venue.

We understand that there may be other sacked grazings committees. The Commission has to be reined in and held to account. We understand that there may be other sacked grazings committees. The Commission has to be reined in and held to account. We will be seeking an urgent meeting with the new Minister for crofting as soon as she or he is in place and will call for a full external inquiry.

It was reported in The Scotsman that a spokeswoman for the Crofting Commission said:-

The actions of the Scottish Crofting Federation are not a matter for the commission.

An extraordinary statement for the regulator of crofting in Scotland to say about the organisation that represents the interests of crofters. The regulator should be taking heed of what they say. Instead they appear to simply be closing the door on them. A door that the Scottish Government must break down with a view to sorting this sorry mess out once and for all.

Crabbit Crofter on Twitter summed the current situation up with this image:-

Search the Crofting Law Blog

Search for:

Subscribe to this Blog via E-mail

Enter your e-mail address to subscribe to the Crofting Law Blog and receive notifications of new posts by e-mail:-

Email Address

About the Crofting Law Blog

This blog explores crofting law.
It is brought to you by Inksters Solicitors, a law firm specialising in crofting law, with offices in Glasgow, Inverness, Forfar, Portree, Wick and a visiting base in Lerwick.
The main authors of posts on this blog are Brian Inkster and Martin Minton.